News Use other 2060 thread please.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

sontin

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2011
3,089
11
91
Your comparision doesnt make any sense. Fermi was on 40nm and Turing is on a more compex and harder 12nmFF. Fermi used a very inefficient architecture, Turing is brand new (third huge architecture update since Fermi!) and efficient with a lot of new features. Fermi used 1,5GB "old" GDDR5 memory, while Turing has brand new 8GB GDDR6.

You just ignore the fact that nVidia put a lot of money into R&D to bring Turing to the market.

Polaris is the same GCN1.0 you were able to buy 8 years ago and GCN was the only real architecture update since Cypress. So it was much cheaper to develop and produce than Turing. Like i said: Ignore everything and you will always be right.
 

sontin

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2011
3,089
11
91
You mean Kepler, huh? Yes, 8 years is wrong. It is 7 years. 7970 was reviewed in December 2011. Polaris is basically the same.
And now compare Turing with Kepler. So yes, Polaris is just GCN 1.0 with a few updates. Turing on the other hand is complete new.
 

itsmydamnation

Golden Member
Feb 6, 2011
1,754
63
136
You mean Kepler, huh? Yes, 8 years is wrong. It is 7 years. 7970 was reviewed in December 2011. Polaris is basically the same.
And now compare Turing with Kepler. So yes, Polaris is just GCN 1.0 with a few updates. Turing on the other hand is complete new.
and skylake is nothing but the p-pro with a few updates...... its has like the same isa and everything, so it must be........

Yes in terms of products on the market amd is effective 2 gens behind, having lost a generation ( lack of R&D) to kepler/maxwell/pascal and amd yet to release anything to compete with turning, but it looks like navi will be first to 7nm and out quite soon.

Also turning is hardly "completely new" its the same set of building blocks assembled in a different configuration with a new block or two thrown in. Thats why there GPU's are so massive (750mm for turnign 102) because NV haven't done anything new in terms of ALU:MTU:ROP , just more toys on the side.
 
Jun 8, 2003
13,984
42
126
and skylake is nothing but the p-pro with a few updates...... its has like the same isa and everything, so it must be........

Yes in terms of products on the market amd is effective 2 gens behind, having lost a generation ( lack of R&D) to kepler/maxwell/pascal and amd yet to release anything to compete with turning, but it looks like navi will be first to 7nm and out quite soon.

Also turning is hardly "completely new" its the same set of building blocks assembled in a different configuration with a new block or two thrown in. Thats why there GPU's are so massive (750mm for turnign 102) because NV haven't done anything new in terms of ALU:MTU:ROP , just more toys on the side.
And when Navi comes out will it be new? The way you describe Fermi to Touring it will not be.
 

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
4,270
199
126
Your comparision doesnt make any sense. Fermi was on 40nm and Turing is on a more compex and harder 12nmFF. Fermi used a very inefficient architecture, Turing is brand new (third huge architecture update since Fermi!) and efficient with a lot of new features. Fermi used 1,5GB "old" GDDR5 memory, while Turing has brand new 8GB GDDR6.
I'm not sure what part of it you're having problems understanding. The argument has nothing to do with the particulars of the cards, architectures, or how efficient they are. It was merely to show that the price NVidia is charging for cards of a particular size has vastly outpaced their direct competitor as well as the rate of inflation.
 

Thunder 57

Senior member
Aug 19, 2007
575
13
116
What about the AMD line vegs 56 or 64? You could always pick up a slower vega 56 for about $375 or Mabe the 2% faster vega 64 for $145 more than the 2060. Hey there is the excellent price performance 590 thats 10% faster than a 580 for 30% more money. Lots of other choices close to the performance of the 2060.
And you won't have to use DLSS or ray tracing because its not even an option.
Why is nobody calling out this BS? Vega 64 is 2% faster than Vega 56? Pure nonsense and hate. From the same guy who thinks the 2060 is wonderful while claiming to wait for reviews. Unnecessary bias.
 

sontin

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2011
3,089
11
91
I'm not sure what part of it you're having problems understanding. The argument has nothing to do with the particulars of the cards, architectures, or how efficient they are. It was merely to show that the price NVidia is charging for cards of a particular size has vastly outpaced their direct competitor as well as the rate of inflation.
Because you just use a artificially timeframe. Why go back to Fermi? Why dont use Kepler and GCN1.0?

Here, that has happenend in the last 7 years:
RX590 is twice as fast as 7970 and has half the price. It is a 4x improvement in price/performance.
RTX2060 is 3x faster and 31% cheaper than GTX680. That is a 4.3x improvement.

Looks better, huh? And this are just dumb numbers. Nothing about the improvement in the architecture which have been made in the last 7 years.
 

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
4,270
199
126
Because you just use a artificially timeframe. Why go back to Fermi? Why dont use Kepler and GCN1.0?
That particular choice isn't necessary. To get the best view, you'd obviously want to graph things out across time and the product stack to get the full picture, but I doubt it would make a difference. I picked that particular card for a few reasons, none of which have anything to do with what you're talking about because none of that matters for the purpose of this comparison:

1) The sizes of the two dies are about the same. Since the size of wafers doesn't change, you get about the same number of chips per wafer.

2) Unless a country is undergoing serious economic turmoil, the inflation rate in the short term is relatively small. A ~2% inflation rate means prices don't move a lot until you start to get 10 years out.

3) There was a somewhat convenient comparison that could be made with an AMD card to serve as a point of reference.

You keep completely missing the point of what everyone else is trying to tell you. No one is debating that you can get more powerful cards today at a lower price, that much is obvious. What everyone has been trying to tell you is that NVidia has been increasing the cost for all of their different performance categories and those increases outpace inflation. Since their margins are increasing, those price increases also outpace their growing expenses.

If you want performance that targets a particular resolution and frame rate (e.g. 1080p 60 FPS) then that will have gotten less expensive. If, however, you want the X80 card from NVidia, the cost to buy into that tier of cards has increased dramatically over time and most of it can't be blamed on increases in die size, inflation, etc.
 
Jun 8, 2003
13,984
42
126
Why is nobody calling out this BS? Vega 64 is 2% faster than Vega 56? Pure nonsense and hate. From the same guy who thinks the 2060 is wonderful while claiming to wait for reviews. Unnecessary bias.
You didn't read it correctly, I was answering a question.....
$375 Vega 56, slower than the $350 rtx2060 and the Vega 64 is 2% faster than the rtx2060 for $145 more.
If you look at it this way the rtx2060 is a good deal.
 

coercitiv

Platinum Member
Jan 24, 2014
2,962
249
136
If you look at it this way the rtx2060 is a good deal.
No it's not, you keep insisting that a new gen card with the performance / cost ratio of a last gen card is a good deal, and you're repeatedly being told this is a nightmare scenario for computing tech. If we lock perf / price ratio going forward, all compute hardware will become prohibitively expensive in just a few generations.

What's next, a $450 price point for RTX 3060? I mean, it will be considerably faster than RX Vega 64, so well worth the price right?! Also looking forward to the $600 RTX 4060, smoking fast card, way better than GTX 1080Ti.
 
Jun 8, 2003
13,984
42
126
No it's not, you keep insisting that a new gen card with the performance / cost ratio of a last gen card is a good deal, and you're repeatedly being told this is a nightmare scenario for computing tech. If we lock perf / price ratio going forward, all compute hardware will become prohibitively expensive in just a few generations.

What's next, a $450 price point for RTX 3060? I mean, it will be considerably faster than RX Vega 64, so well worth the price right?! Also looking forward to the $600 RTX 4060, smoking fast card, way better than GTX 1080Ti.
Its a better deal than what the competition is offering, that's my point and in the real world to the average consumer is the one that matters most.
We are the minority, you do realize that right?
 

sontin

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2011
3,089
11
91
@Mopetar
the successor of GF100 was GK104 and not GK100. The GTX680 was released at $499, Titan came in at $999.
 
Jun 8, 2003
13,984
42
126
Its a better deal than what the competition is offering, that's my point and in the real world to the average consumer is the one that matters most.
We are the minority, you do realize that right?
I'm willing to guess the rtx2060 or 1160 will be the highest selling GPU for the next year or so for about $350. AMD will drop the prices of the Vega 56 and 64 to under $325 or they will not sell any better than they are now, and they do,t seem to be selling good at all now.

Edit. How did that happen? I didn't mean to quote myself.
 

Shmee

Memory and Storage, Graphics Cards
Super Moderator
Sep 13, 2008
3,600
14
106
Are you sure the 2060 would be faster than a good Vega? Where are the benches as I have not found them yet...that said, there is a powercolor RX Vega 56 with a good cooler on newegg for $369. Seems like a decent deal assuming similar performance, but the Vega has more memory. The reference coolers are not what I would recommend, but from time to time great deals on custom Vega cards show up. Basically competing with 1070Ti and 1080.
 

coercitiv

Platinum Member
Jan 24, 2014
2,962
249
136
Its a better deal than what the competition is offering, that's my point and in the real world to the average consumer is the one that matters most.
In the real world channels are saturated, the market is not willing to absorb new cards which bring little perf/dollar gains over previous gens. On investor calls Nvidia is in an awkward position of telling them they were expecting older Pascal prices to drop faster while at the same time they launched Turing cards with higher prices than ever before, pulling ASP back up. Investors may be polite on those calls, but they're not stupid.

The RTX 2060 fighting for perf/price ratio with Vega 56 may look better in forum fan brawls, but out there in the real world it's a disaster. Vega is a weak product in all efficiency metrics (except maybe mining), any new Nvidia product should aim far beyond. There should be no competition here, the new Nvidia product should win hands down in all metrics.
 

Qwertilot

Golden Member
Nov 28, 2013
1,346
22
106
Honestly vega would worry me a little. High power draw of course, but also a very low volume card with a relatively distinctive architecture.

The 7nm stuff from AMD should do vastly better on both those counts :) Architecture matching a console(s) a considerable plus.
 
Jun 8, 2003
13,984
42
126
Are you sure the 2060 would be faster than a good Vega? Where are the benches as I have not found them yet...that said, there is a powercolor RX Vega 56 with a good cooler on newegg for $369. Seems like a decent deal assuming similar performance, but the Vega has more memory. The reference coolers are not what I would recommend, but from time to time great deals on custom Vega cards show up. Basically competing with 1070Ti and 1080.
THE RTX2060 will be 79% on this recent chart.
overclocked it will faster than the gtx 1080.
relative-performance_2560-1440.png
 

maddie

Platinum Member
Jul 18, 2010
2,220
89
136
No it's not, you keep insisting that a new gen card with the performance / cost ratio of a last gen card is a good deal, and you're repeatedly being told this is a nightmare scenario for computing tech. If we lock perf / price ratio going forward, all compute hardware will become prohibitively expensive in just a few generations.

What's next, a $450 price point for RTX 3060? I mean, it will be considerably faster than RX Vega 64, so well worth the price right?! Also looking forward to the $600 RTX 4060, smoking fast card, way better than GTX 1080Ti.
I'm willing to guess the rtx2060 or 1160 will be the highest selling GPU for the next year or so for about $350. AMD will drop the prices of the Vega 56 and 64 to under $325 or they will not sell any better than they are now, and they do,t seem to be selling good at all now.

Edit. How did that happen? I didn't mean to quote myself.
Poetic justice?

You're hearing but not listening to anyone besides yourself. This is the universe telling you something. Listen to it at least. :p
 

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
4,270
199
126
You didn't read it correctly, I was answering a question.....
$375 Vega 56, slower than the $350 rtx2060 and the Vega 64 is 2% faster than the rtx2060 for $145 more.
If you look at it this way the rtx2060 is a good deal.
Why would you want to compare the 2060 to one of the more disappointing cards in recent memory in order to make any kind of value judgement. It's like Chevy saying that if you compare their new car to a Ford Pinto it's a pretty good deal.
Its a better deal than what the competition is offering, that's my point and in the real world to the average consumer is the one that matters most.
We are the minority, you do realize that right?
That merely explains why it is the cost that it is, not that it is a good value. If you have to go around comparing the 2060 to a card that is considered to be one of the most disappointing in recent memory, you’re not making a compelling argument.
 

Qwertilot

Golden Member
Nov 28, 2013
1,346
22
106
That's where the competition is right now though. Between that and the state the crypto boom left everything in......
 
Jun 8, 2003
13,984
42
126
Why would you want to compare the 2060 to one of the more disappointing cards in recent memory in order to make any kind of value judgement. It's like Chevy saying that if you compare their new car to a Ford Pinto it's a pretty good deal.


That merely explains why it is the cost that it is, not that it is a good value. If you have to go around comparing the 2060 to a card that is considered to be one of the most disappointing in recent memory, you’re not making a compelling argument.
Well if you read through the thread, I compared it to the $470 msrp gtx1070 ti, know one liked that, then I showed that its price performance was on par with a rx480 and gtx1060, know one like that, now I compared it to the ACTUAL competition and im getting a backlash.
It faster than the $700 msrp gtx980ti, for $350.
But the only rebuttle I'm getting is " the value sucks".
Compared to what????
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


ASK THE COMMUNITY